In one fell swoop — his interview for Andrew Ferguson’s profile of him in The Weekly Standard — Haley Barbour effectively eliminated himself from being a serious contender for the Republican nomination as the GOP’s presidential candidate in 2012. As most everyone knows by now, Barbour said to Ferguson that in his hometown of Yazoo City, the schools were integrated peacefully, and violence was avoided, unlike the case in other Mississippi localities. Barbour then continued:

“Because the business community wouldn’t stand for it,” he said. “You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, you’d lose it. If you had a store, they’d see nobody shopped there. We didn’t have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.”

By portraying the notorious White Citizens Councils as a solid and decent alternative to the racist Klan, Barbour — a skilled politician if there ever was one — opened himself up for a tirade of attacks as a Southern-born man who had a good life in his segregated boyhood home, and who so many decades later still doesn’t get it and is apologizing for the old racism of his home state.

When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns’ integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn’t tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the “Citizens Council,” is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African Americans who were persecuted in that time.

The question is a simple one: Is his mea culpa enough, or does it still not do the job? Jennifer Rubin, for one, is certain that Barbour fell far short. On her blog at the Washington Post, she writes: “Those who believe, with a fair amount of justification, that he simply doesn’t get it on matters of race are hardly going to be mollified by a written statement after more than 24 hours of horrid press coverage.” Moreover, she notes that whenever Barbour speaks about anything else, this one statement will be continually brought up — again and again — and he will never be able to get beyond it. Barbour’s fans might be disappointed and angry, but Rubin’s point is well-taken. In today’s United States, a candidate who has made a “racially insensitive” comment simply will not be allowed to put it in his past.

Media critic Howard Kurtz is one of the few who is not so sure. At the Daily Beast, Kurtz argues that while Barbour should clearly have “known better” to make such a foolish statement, he believes that “the press [is] getting itself worked into a lather over what Barbour did and thought when he was a teenager.” After all, Barbour also said that he went to hear Martin Luther King, Jr. speak in Yazoo, but as a 15 year old, was more interested in checking out the girls who attended the event.

The problem, however, is that every politician’s views of his youth have become fair game. Kurtz notes:

Southerners of a certain age are especially vulnerable on questions of race. When Virginia’s George Allen was unsuccessfully seeking reelection to the Senate in 2006, Salon reported that three of his former college football teammates recalled him using the N-word and demonstrating racist attitudes toward blacks. Allen called the allegations “ludicrously false.”

Kurtz, however, thinks the time has come to let people like Barbour have a pass for their youthful views, even if they were tinged with the racism which prevailed in the Mississippi white community at the time. He writes:

Barbour should certainly be held accountable for the insensitive way he talked about the bad old days of officially sanctioned racial prejudice. His statement today is an acknowledgement of how badly he bobbled the question. But at some point you have to ask: Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on this stuff?

To that question, I answer no, and here’s why I think Kurtz is wrong. Barbour should have known that the views he once had — and to which he still seems to subscribe — are both inaccurate and historically incorrect. The White Citizens Council was not a decent alternative to the Klan that sought to help Yazoo move to accept integration without fierce resistance.

Writing at the site of the History News Network, historian James C. Cobb, who has written a new book about the South after World War II, shows that Barbour today is dead wrong when he writes that he remembers the situation for blacks in Yazoo City as “not being that bad.” Cobb points out that that Council was “arch segregationist,” as much as was the Klan. He explains its purpose in the following paragraph:

Pledged to maintain white supremacy, the councils foreswore violence but did their best to intimidate blacks who might think about challenging the status quo and to make painful examples of those who did. Perched atop the local economic pyramid, the councils’ white elites could seriously reduce, if not cut off entirely, the flow of commerce and credit, not to mention employment, to blacks who got out of line. Council leaders typically made it a point to see that the names of any black persons who had attempted to register to vote or signed petitions for school desegregation made their way to the local newspapers so that whites in the community would know which blacks to fire, turn off their tenant farms, or deny credit. An Alabama council member summed up his group’s aims quite candidly when he explained, “We intend to make it difficult, if not impossible, for a Negro who advocates desegregation to find and hold a job, get credit, or renew a mortgage.”

The Council was strongest in Mississippi, where, he writes, “the Council propagandized about the horrors of racial amalgamation and publicized the NAACP’s ‘well-known’ ties to communism. The group also worked closely with the publicly funded State Sovereignty Commission to spy on, harass, and undermine not only those thought to favor integration but those whose attitudes toward it were simply unclear.”

In other words, it relied on economic and political pressure, rather than cross-burnings and lynching like the Klan. What Cobb writes is even more damning. In Yazoo City, he reveals, in August of 1955, “the local NAACP chapter submitted a petition bearing fifty-three signatures to the school board asking for immediate desegregation of all schools. Stunned that the supposedly well-treated, contented black citizenry of Yazoo City would make such a move, the local Citizens’ Council moved swiftly.” It took a large ad in the local paper, listing the names of all those citizens who signed the NAACP petition — black professionals, businessmen and tradesman who had achieved a certain higher status among the black population, and who were willing to put their names down to achieve racial justice. They thought they would be protected from white coercion and pressure. That, Cobb says, was not the case. The results were disastrous:

One by one, those who signed the petition lost their jobs or whatever ‘business’ or ‘trade’ they had with whites. Some blacks moved quickly to remove their names from the list. Others held out but eventually followed suit. Many of those who removed their names found it impossible to get their old jobs back, nor could they find new employment. Many left town altogether.

Now in 1955, Haley Barbour was only eight years old, and of course, he had no personal knowledge of this. But as one who later learned about Mississippi’s tortured racial legacy, and as a national political leader, he has a responsibility to learn about the true historical past of his own hometown, and not to prettify it with personal reminiscences that are anything but accurate. And as Cobb adds, the time about which Barbour reflects was one in which new jobs were being given to whites only, and when formerly employed black land workers were essentially all driven out of their homes for lack of work.

So I award kudos to our colleagues at Commentary’s “Contentions” blog, Jonathan Tobin and Linda Chavez. Tobin writes that because liberal organs of opinion are joining together to blast Barbour, conservatives cannot reflexively come to his defense. He argues persuasively that “while Barbour may be innocent of any racism personally, denial of the truth about the essential ugliness of much of what some like to term the ‘heritage’ of the South is unacceptable. As the nation celebrates the sesquicentennial of the Civil War over the next four years, the willingness of some to indulge in fantasies about the Confederacy is something that is bound to cause problems for Southern white Republicans, especially one who is thinking about running against the first African-American president of the United States.”

And Linda Chavez adds that “many conservatives are either unaware of the pervasiveness of racial discrimination prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, or they choose, like Barbour, to engage in selective memory.” It is not enough, as I have heard some conservatives try to prove, that the Republican Party was always the party of civil rights from Lincoln’s day onward, and that the white racists in the South were the Southern Democrats. If you think that is a sufficient excuse, go to the library and look up civil rights-era issues of National Review. William F. Buckley’s journal of opinion was anything but a frontline supporter of civil rights for black Americans.

Chavez notes:

To put the era in perspective, Abby Thernstrom, in her seminal study of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Whose Votes Count?, notes that fewer than 7 percent of voting-age blacks were registered in Mississippi prior to federal registrars being sent in after the Act was passed; by 1967, the number of registered blacks had jumped to 60 percent. And it is hard to imagine that Barbour wasn’t at least aware of the murder of three civil-rights activists in 1964 in Meridian, Mississippi, just 140 miles from his hometown of Yazoo City, not to mention the segregation that permeated every facet of public life. Haley and I graduated high school the same year, and even though I was living in Denver at the time, I was very much aware of what was going on in Mississippi. To ignore this history requires an act of will.

That is an act of will which Barbour’s most recent statement does not address in any sufficient fashion. Moreover, as conservatives today support color-blind policies and oppose the kind of liberal programs that continue to favor racial preferences for minorities, as Chavez bravely argues, we can do so by noting that we do so as people who have the moral authority to always have opposed racism and, for many of us who were around at the time, participated actively in the civil rights movement.

Barbour, growing up in the white South, was not part of that movement. We cannot pick where we were born, and the milieu in which we were raised. But as adults, we can look back and honestly say that our ancestors were wrong, as were many of those conservatives who, for various reasons, were fierce opponents of civil rights. Chavez concludes:

Unfortunately, the opposition to racial preferences that harm whites (and Asians) coming from many conservatives today is far more fervent than was their opposition to racial discrimination that harmed blacks in the past. It would help conservatives’ cause to acknowledge that failure rather than pretend it was not one.

To this, I give a hearty amen!

Click here to view the 59 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

59 Comments, 35 Threads

1.
proreason

We all live in the country of tolerance and honey.

Haley Barbour will certainly be given the identical treatment that the president has been accorded for his infrequent slips of the tongue when greatly fatigued by his unfailing efforts to redeem our country from its lifetime of sins, or when his churning hatred for conservative Americans simply boils over into uncontrollable rage.

If necessary, Mr. Barbour will give an acclaimed speech that will be required reading by schoolchildren for centuries.

I can’t see any way whatsoever that the msm will be unfair with Mr. Barbour, nor that the seemingly loaded term “blank check” used by our rigorously conservative host Mr Radoff is anything other than an unintentionally judgemental word choice.

It is an unfortunate truism that, as long as the leftmedia are the main window of perception for large numbers of people, there will be ridiculous imbalances between minor gaffes by white Republicans and major faux-pas by white Dems (YEAH BIDEN, I’M TALKING ABOUT **YOU**).

I’m not so sure we should spend a lot of time working for the defense of Barbour only because I’m not sure he’s someone we need/should spend a lot of political capital on. First let’s see how well he, and his own people, can handle it. It WAS still his screwup, and he does need to show he has some capability to solve his own problems of that sort… and it’s not, as the article suggests, as though it should be too much of a surprise that it’s a bad idea to openly support ANY white agency of the south in that time span that had ANY pro-white aspect to it — even a substantially more benign one like the Councils in question.

THAT SAID, I’d toss out one rather obvious fact:

The “defense” that we need to also look at Buckley, et al, as signs the GOP were no prizes in this regard is ludicrous. We need to keep them ON the defense with regards to race, and STOP playing defense ourselves. The history of the Dems makes them FAR, FAR more vulnerable in this regard. By playing defense we allow them to control the narrative.

Mr. Barbour portrayed his hometown as being more tolerant than it was, from what I gather. Perhaps he embellished their goodness, put a halo around their intentions and expanded their grace, downplaying their sins.

Did he kill a young woman by driving her off a bridge?

Did he meet with enemies of state during a time of war?

Did he champion a group that pinned a sitting senator in a woman’s bathroom with threats, intimidation and the undercurrent of potential violence?

Did he consort with tear down the system anarchists and plot ways to circumvent the will of the people.

Should leftists give a “blank check” to any politician that did any of the above things…or worse?

I am a staunch opponent of racism, anti-Semitism, and all forms of bigotry. Have been the whole of my life. In fact, I am such a staunch opponent of mindless bigotry…I even resent it when it is aimed at Christians, Southerners, and white people in general.

Go figure.

My sentiment about Haley Barbour is that he meant no harm and intended no offense. When the leftists who are working themselves into a lather come forward willing to apply the rules of behavior and intention evenly, we can talk about whether I should be at all impressed with their faux umbrage.

What we ought to be considering is whether Mr. Barbour deserves fairness in treatment accorded to others by the very folks who want to destroy him now.

If there is a teachable moment here, it should be for the entire classroom, not just a Southern, white male. They have been a target of unfairness and bigotry all their own. We don’t need to engage in some false measuring stick as to which was “worse”, all of it is unacceptable. Just because acts were more egregious and despicable against one group does NOT justify bigotry toward another. Ever.

Mr. Barbour…nor anyone else…deserves a “blank check”. ANYONE else….when it comes to bigotry. But, we all deserve the benefit of the doubt and a reading of our actions and words that our commensurate with the totality of our lives.

This essay was not your finest moment, Ron. You are better than this. I believe in your heart that you are an extremely good person and I will stand against any who suggest otherwise. I hope you will do the same for others when the opportunity presents itself in the future.

Well said! Unfortunately, we all have a tendency to view past actions through the retrospectoscope fashioned out of present-day attitudes. A White Citizens Council guarding blacks against KKK, while maintaining segregation sounds bigoted today, but let’s remember that in that era, separate but equal was official policy of the government. A Citizens Council enforcing order and separate-but-equal in those days would be lawful and patriotic, yet today is regarded as bigoted and shameful.

“Perhaps” . . . “embellish” . . . these are the words of a man unwilling to write the truth and unable to stand on principle. Barbour’s outrage and subsequent fumbling of his walkback portrayed him and his ilk for what they are, race supremacists. That’s another name you can scratch off the list of presidential hopefuls for 2012. Too bad, i was looking forward to a good minstrel show.

I wish the leftist “journalists” would quit stirring the pot! You cannot view past racism through 21st century rose-colored glasses. Having lived in Mississippi for 14 years, including Katrina, I am here to tell you that Governor Barbour is one of the best governors this country has ever seen. New Orleans could wish such a governor, as they are still buried under 2005′s Katrina while Mississippi booms.

I think if you read the previous half dozen posts by Radosh you will see his willingness to skewer the left, to expose the far left, to reveal the leftist tendencies behind some recent groups trying to portray themselves as centrists, to openly expose remaining communists as such, and to defend people like Glenn Beck even while criticizing some of his misunderstandings of historical facts, against charges that he is a racist antisemite. So I don’t think Radosh’s Barbour article gives the Left a pass; but he won’t give the right a pass for its, in some cases, romance with racism in the 50s and early 60s, or in other cases studies neutrality. As for the MSM that is a different story but we can’t exclude self critique just because the other side doesn’t do it.

Despite my comment in number 4 ,proreason, cfbleachers and pedro’s comments sent me searching for an example of their concerns and I found: Things only a Kennedy could get away with by Mark Steyn. It is worth reading in preparation for the critiques that will follow every Republican who emerges as a potential Obama opponent in 2012.

There was an entire continent to hide in – it’s called Africa. People around the world for centuries have fled oppression to go elsewhere and seek a better life and mass migrations continue today. People who don’t do so are not making a persuasive argument for oppression in the true sense of the term or their own resolve.

One need look no further than Jim Cone writing in his 2004 essay, “Living Stones In the Household of God” “…white supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even tho black people are dying daily from it’s poison.” to see a culture challenged when it comes to perceiving true oppression.

Which must mean that you believe Ted Kennedy committing a cowardly murder, or John Kerry negotiating with the Viet Cong and lying about his war record, or Barney Franks allowing his gay lover to run a brothel from his townhome are all morally superior to Haley Barbour growing up in the south and choosing to view the culture of his youth as less than pure evil.

Ron: let’s say for a moment that he did not make those racist comments, hence he would have been able to run for president.
he is been Mississipi’s governor since at least katrina correct?
what has he done for the state of mississipi? nothing. it is the poorest, least litirate and backward state in the unoin. this who who you want to run our country? ron let’s get real. it is because of people you and the people who write and those who blog here as well all of those who write and blog for Huff post is that our country is going into a shit hole.
while I am sure I will be censored by Mr. simon’s censors but if you do get to read this please give a thought,
Happy holidays!
m

Miriam, In what state did you learn to spell “literate”? I usually give spelling, punctuation, and capitalization errors a pass, but since your post is filled with those, no one is taking your “Mississippi literacy” cries seriously. Oh, wait. Were you educated in Mississippi, and you intended to demonstrate your poor education? If so, sorry.

Hey Miriam, Have you ever heard of Katrina? Have you compared your state with the others pounded by her? I guess not. Mr. Barbour may have come from a turbulent time in our nation’s history but he’s not a racial hustler like Mr. Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Young, Bond, Rangel, Waters and Obama. If you look at anyone of these “People” you will find mean divisive acts and criminal activities. I’ll bet you would vote for anyone of them to run Ms. wouldn’t you. Mr. Barbour is a can-do Governor and has the smarts to get things done. His past is just that, past.

I hate to say it, but Miriam, for once, has a point. Mississippi is one of the worst-off States in the Nation.Barbour did a fine job with the hurricanes, but otherwise, his State is still in the toilet. Not all his fault of course. There are deep-seated systemic problems, but it should be demonstrably better by now.

I do not like Huckabee’s approach, but HIS State of Arkansas saw real improvement during his time as Governor. Barbour cannot say the same.

On a purely executive basis, she kinda has a point which bears further scrutiny. Perhaps my information is lacking. Perhaps there has been real progress.

There’s another statistic about Mississippi that explains much of its education and poverty figures, but merely to suggest it will certainly elicit precisely the same reflexive, banal accusations of “racism!!!!11″

“By portraying the notorious White Citizens Councils as a solid and decent alternative to the racist Klan…”

Except he didn’t say that. All he said was that the White Citizens Council wouldn’t allow KKK types to use violence to block federally ordered school desegregation in Yazoo City and that’s why there was no violence in Yazoo City.

It doesn’t matter what he actually said or what he meant. He will be pilloried by the left and the MSM into oblivion. It is imperative for the left to assassinate (in some manner) anyone who might be a strong contender for the right. In a civil debate of facts only, there would soon be only a rump party of “progressive” politicians left in DC.

Forty years of leftist Hollywood brainwashing has left many people-probably a majority-with an incredibly distorted picture of the past. Racial segregation, deprivation of voting rights and a handful of murders can in no way be equated with mass murder operations like the Holocaust and the Holodomor.

If you ask me why the Soviets didn’t launch an invasion into western Europe or launch a nuclear strike against the United States, and I say that it’s because the communist leadership wouldn’t let their more rabid generals engage in that level of violence, and you turn around and try and say that I’m endorsing communism or I’m saying their leadership was a bunch of swell guys…then you’re an absolute idiot.

And, that’s the same situation here. Radosh and the other people that are slamming on Barbour are way off base.

There might be legitimate reasons to criticize Haley Barbour for all I know…but, this criticism is not legitimate.

Fair enough critique of Barber, if for no other reason than he should have understood the political dynamics of this, and took ownership of it before it took ownership of him. But let’s not pretend that the left doesn’t embellish their heroes and flush inconvenient facts about, for example, Communists in the FDR administration, down the toilet, either.

I would actually welcome turning all of the rocks on all of the major politicians of the 20th century. Neither side would come out looking better, but I know which side would come out looking a lot worse.

It really does not make sense to see every issue as being “our side” against “their side”. Making these arguments only reveal intellectual and moral weakness.

Look, Haley Barbour and many other white men of his generation were not personally damaged by the legal and social discriminations common in Mississippi throughout their lifetime. They managed to prosper and live well without developing empathy or outrage over real and continuing oppression of people solely because of their skin color. They feel no need to try to make amends in any way or to condemn past wrongs while furthering brotherhood in the here and now.

Some people are not bothered by that and will give the Haley Barbours of this world a huge benefit of doubt. Others will think that having conducted himself in such fashion openly for years Gov Barbour does not deserve their personal support.

Mr Barbour is a smart and clever man, and he must have his eyes open enough to realize that he makes no big attempt to appeal to the latter folks, while basing his efforts on the former. We shall see whether that is a productive strategy for him, politically.

“It really does not make sense to see every issue as being “our side” against “their side”. Making these arguments only reveal intellectual and moral weakness.”

We have to be better than them of course, even if it means letting them control our lives.

It would be morally weak not to admit that castigating a decent man for political purposes is 100% justified, even though 95% of the people in his generation undoubtedly were worse. Virtually EVERYBODY in that generation were, at the least, guilty of low-level racism.

You sir, are thoroughly brainwashed, and probably have a very long arm from patting yourself on the back.

inspectorudy: please read my post carefully. where did I say he is racist. I said he made a racist comment. the reason he should not be running our country is that in the ast ten years of running mississpi, that state is still the most pathetic state in the union which can only tell me of his track record which is less that pathetic. as for all those black people you mentioned here it clrearly shows that you are a racist becacause plenty of white politicains have committed crimes and are corrupt which you failed to mention. by the way with the exception of prsident obama the rest of those assholes you mentioned are the biggest scmam on this side of the Atlantic and the biggest douch of all is Al sharpton and by no choice of mine I happen to see him every f…ing week in an exclusive club in new york wining and dining but has no money to pay his f…ing rent.
M

I am totally sick of this BS. I know little about Governor Barbour, but I will no longer accept this pillorying of public figures for innocent statements. So what if this “Citizens’ Council,” whatever it was, wasn’t wholly in tune with contemporary politically correct racial nonsense? They took an admirable and unambiguous stance toward the most noxious, violent organization of that context.

Nothing Governor Barbour said should be taken as an endorsement of legally enforced segregation or racial prejudice. That forces and voices on the Right are already offering him to the Left as a sacrificial lamb marks those forces and voices as cowards and appeasers, worthy of no respect whatsoever. It’s time we manifested the backbone appropriate to persons who are proud of our values and understand the contextual nature of American history. Are we to disavow Lincoln next because he, a man of his times and its beliefs, publicly endorsed the supremacy of the white race?

In today’s view, the Council would be considered virulently racist and noxious. But in those times, they were actually rather tolerant in comparison. As a policy, they eschewed the violence. Good for them. This was not an easy thing to achieve in those days. One only need look at the Selma march to see what that difference means.

Barbour should have qualified his statement, but one should not have to go around getting into all the weeds on every single issue. Answers in such things, by nature, have to be short and simple. As such, it leaves much opportunity for folks to read too much into one’s position.

Should he have gone into great detail on the subject? Should he have vilified his hometown for attitudes that were then quite tolerant?

Besides, it’s not like he was Senator Byrd who was a member of the KKK. It’s not like he was Biden who described Obama as “clean”. He simply made the statement that they eschewed the violence. It does not make him a racist. After all, he, too, has a point.

He made a statement of fact. It was not an endorsement of racism. Yazoo city, at least, eschewed the violence so prevalent in other areas like theirs at the time.

Couldn’t care less about Haley Barbour’s as potential POTUS….but I thought Eric Holder wanted us to have a conversation about race. We Mr. Barbour supposed to check with somebody about what he was allowed to say or think about it?

I suppose that’s next…and Mr. Holder just hasn’t released the details of the rules yet…or Mr. Barbour didn’t get the memo.

Miriam Rove tries to pull a relation between Mississippi’s DREADFUL public education system and Governmental leadership.

Miriam, I’m a product of California’s 80′s public education system. At the time the state ranked in the low-mid 20′s nationally (now ranked 48th). This is when the state ‘boasted’ of the 1st idiocy of Moonbeam as Governor, sun-in hairdo Boxer and Doiley-collared Feinstein in place. Heck, even Pelosi was probably trying some early forms of botox at the time. All the same players.

The glaring difference between then and now is the cradle to grave welfare gravy train/entitlement types has increased exponentially. In some of today’s ‘reasoning’:

The point is, accountability is disregarded and in some instances encouraged. Actual pro-society courses, 4 year degrees are in many instances WORTHLESS – yet you’re surprised by such results?

Instead of pointing blame at your self-serving elitists in the political arena, talk to those diplaying destructive, lazy, empathy-seekers who are merely existing and make change THEMSELVES and not by some ‘Government intiative’. Those ‘initiatives’ is idiot-speak for continued reliance upon thy Government teet.

As for Barbour, the man is little/no different than the 500+ folks on the Hill.

Too bad the Hispanic and Black Caucus ‘brainstorming sessions’ weren’t recorded for public use. Suffice to say it’d be very interesting.

I might worry about Haley Barbour’s behavior as soon as the politically correct left-wing establishment is concerned about Barack Obama’s disgraceful past infatuation with extreme leftist ideology. The nonsense that racism is the worse sin of all must be soundly rejected. It is merely one major sin of many. Haley Barbour was nothing more than a confused child. We should only be concerned with his early adult and onward behavior. Barbour is only guilty of being a white Republican. A Democrat would be cut all sorts of slack.

Well, Haley Barbour Week at PJM sure has been interesting. I’m actually rather gratified that so many people have come out in favor of Barbour’s rights, while able to seperate those from his words. Better still, some rational discussion of his record has ensued. Merry Christmas to all.

I too was raised in the Deep South and I recall quite vividly from having seen it first hand and in person the terrible White on Black violence which accompanied the years of integration. Now I am an adult and I realize how deeply emotional and highly charged those years were, and how easily decades of discrimination turned into bloodshed over something as simple as Blacks trying to use what was heretofore a Whites only public park.
Those were terrible and very difficult times in the South, for everyone, and the really miraculous aspect to it all is that so few Whites were willing to use physical violence against Blacks and how few, albeit far too many, Northern and Southern White integrationists and Black American citizens were hurt and killed by those Whites.
Fifty years later it is much easier to make judgements and accusations, but for those of us who were there, it was not so simple and clear.

I am not so sure Haley Barbour is wrong in his recollections – a bit “off”, perhaps, but not totally off base. I have noticed that leftist academics (redundant I know) have established a rigidly dogmatic narrative of racial history in America that does not allow for nuance and shades of gray. I am wondering if this incident isn’t an aspect of that attempt to control the narrative – and thus control how people frame the present. Currently the leftists historians are attempting to recast the reconstruction period and early Jim Crow era as a period of virtual slavery for African-Americans, instigated by a white population whose motives were 100% racist and utterly predatory. They’re attempting to airbrush away the post-Civil War crime and chaos in the south that came with sudden emancipation, for example, and refuse to put Jim Crow into the context of the prevailing intellectual consensus of the time.

I’m absolutely NOT endorsing Jim Crow or trying to apologize for the crimes of the KKK, by the way, but I do understand that this is not as simple as the current leftist historical narrative pretends.

Why does “the Right” always fall for these canards hook, line, and sinker? Does nobody remember the list, of presumptive GOP candidates, being circulated a month or two ago, instructing Democrat apparatchiks and the media (but I repeat myself) to begin launching the -ism missiles at those on the list? Barbour was on this “enemies list”.

This point has already been made by several other commenters, but it bears repeating. Democrats routinely get away with far worse things than this. Why? Well for one thing, they have a compliant media. A huge advantage for sure. But they also get away with these things because they close ranks and get all their members on the same page. Their political instincts are orders of magnitude better than Republicans’. I would, in fact, say they know how to circle the wagons but I’d hate to be called a racist.

Once again, we witness another influential Republican spouting insensitive and/or insulting remarks about blacks, Latinos, gays and other minorities. Who will be voting for GOP candidates in the future?

Unfortunately, Tea Bagging morons who want “the government to keep their hands off of medicare” will be watching Glenn Beck doodle on his chalkboard and mindlessly vote against their (and our) best interests.

No, conservatives, and conservative writers should just mournfully nod their heads in agreementwhen left-wing hacks nd DNC operatives call Barbour names, and bleed their little hearts all over the place about all things pre-1965. OR. They could grow a pair and tell the MSM and Politico and everbody else claiming that Haley stepped in it to JUST FREAKIN’ GET OVER IT. Or, they can, as Eric Holder famously said, remain a nation of cowards in matters of race.

I am TIRED of Southerners dictating policy!!! Haley is a political hack from a bygone era. Conservatism doesn’t mean re-living the mistakes of the past! Another fat-racist-Republican. Any more stereotypes you wish to be filling?

Why am I not surprised that a man who spent not only his youth but much of his adult life actively working for the greatest evil in human history, Soviet Communism, now feels Haley Barbour is unfit to associate with decent people for the crime of not denouncing his parents for their evil thought crimes. Eric Honnecker would be so proud.